YHWH's forgiveness is intimately associated with his salvific act and ultimately expresses his nature as that of a loving God whose desire it is to give himself to those in covenant with him, and beyond. This revelation evokes a response from his elect to be of this same nature toward himself and his neighbour. Forgiveness is bestowed through both liturgical and unliturgical means, with the emphasis being placed upon the attitude of the individual, but always within the tension of the absolute unapproachableness of God along with his everlasting abounding [Hb] hesed.

The nature of OT forgiveness is such that it cannot be spoken of in isolation, for forgiveness is inextricably associated with sin, that which God is "other than", and also his nature, that which God "is". It is a watershed between death and life. This paper shall attempt to address the idea of OT forgiveness, particularly how it is dealt with between God and man, and man and his neighbour. The focus of this discussion shall be on the Levitical liturgies involved in the process of forgiveness, which aim to highlight the character of YHWH. The idea of God's actions revealing his nature (Eichrodt, 1967:480), is not merely present in these liturgical forms, but, as shall be discussed, also within the unliturgical forms of forgiveness.

Vine (1985:250) renders 'forgive' in the Greek as aphiemi, which in its essence means "to send forth , send away ..., to remit ", and can relate to the two specific areas of debts and sins. The first concerns the more tangible, for example; property, and relates to the cancelling of due punishment for wrongful action, and the freeing of the individual from the righteously imposed penalty (Ibid). Whereas the second deals more with the attitude, which involves a total elimination of that which has caused the wrongdoing and has a moral aspect to it (Ibid). There are a series of Hebrew words which translate into our English term 'forgive'. Of those which relate to this study there are three in particular; keluhyy (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31); sâlach (Numbers 14:19; Leviticus 4:20); năsâ' (Psalm 32:1; Isaiah 33:24) (Gilbrant,1990:502). These each carry the connotations of 'remission', with the object of that remission relating to either sin or guilt, and the one authorising the remission being God (Bultman in Kittel,1964:510). Bultman (Ibid) suggests that the Hebrew verbs' original sense was directly associated with the cultus, predominantly the extirpation and expiation of sin, whereas the Greek rendering gives a more legal sense resulting in "the relationship of man to God [being] conceived of in legal terms, ..".

In addressing the question as to why the need for forgiveness is necessary Eichrodt (1967:383) states "the decisive feature was the conflicting directions of two wills, the divine and the human, and this conflict could only be resolved by dealings between two persons". Highlighting the relational aspect which is integral to this concept, and manifests itself in two main realm; the betrayal of trust, and action contrary to normality (Ibid:381). Added to this is the idea that the parties involved need not be individual, it can incorporate the community, as will be addressed.

As mentioned above the idea of forgiveness is intimately associated with both sin and guilt, and as the focus is the cultus - biblically - attention will be given to Leviticus and in particular; the sin offering (4:1-5:13); the reparation or guilt offering (5:14-6:7); and the Day of Atonement (16:1-34).

In examining the sin offering it can be observed that a clear distinction is made between intentional, and unintentional sins (Knight:1981:26), the latter was expiable whereas the former was described most graphically as "sins with a high hand" (Ibid). These kind of sins placed the sinner right outside the place of God's forgiveness (Ibid:27), as this was considered "high treason and revolt against God with the upraised, clenched fist: a picket against heaven!" (Kaiser,1978:118). How this type of sin is dealt with shall be addressed later.

The sin offering deals with the unintentional sin, and is concerned with four areas; inadvertent mediatorial sin (priest) (4:3-12); inadvertent congregational sin (13-21); inadvertent individual sin (nobility) (22-26): inadvertent individual sin (commoner) (27-35). The priest because of his role is given close attention, although many of the details were most likely carried out for the following but for the sake of brevity, quite possibly, they are not present. The cruciality of the priest's role is highlighted by his mention in a formula of assurance to the benefactor ; " .. the priest shall make atonement for them (him), and they (he) shall be forgiven" (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31).

Because the securing of forgiveness was not taken lightly, either divine or human, the cost was great, symbolically and economically, and the "payment was wrapped up in the theology of atonement" (Kaiser,1978:117). Therefore the most vital aspect of the rite was the blood rite , as this is the only thing acceptable to purge and cleanse the place of God's presence and release the offender from the sin (Hartley, 1992:70). Leviticus 17:11 assert this; "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Life here is perceived in the same light as power, namely God's own power (Zimmerli,1978:131). Zimmerli (Ibid) suggests that this ordinance gives access to the power which is exclusive to YHWH who graciously "gives" this to man in a new way. Despite this, inherent here is the demand for life by God, for the offender has walked contrary to His life, which implies the offender is going the way of death, and "life" (blood) is required to "balance", or "cancel" that imbalance caused by the offenders forbidden action. Knight (1981:28) suggests that "sin is what living people do. Thus, since 'the blood is the life' (of a man), when you pour out blood, you pour out a man's life". This is understood in symbolic rather than literal term though. In the case of the priest, for example, forgiveness is effected when the blood of the sacrificed animal - symbolically representing life - is poured out and touches four specific areas; the place of God's presence; the curtain hiding God's holiness; the altar which sends the sacrifice up to God; and the incense that is to be sweet aroma to God (Knight,1981:28,29).

The sacrifices themself play an important role in this aspect of the cultus, the most dominant being payment/punishment on one side, yet assurance on the other (Kaiser,1978:118). Both economically and theologically the sacrifice must cost the sinner, this is emphasised in each of the "areas" mentioned above - priestly, nobility, community member and community. A progression from most expensive to less expensive is shown in the sacrifice required, within this an expression of God's mercy is shown by receiving as acceptable a grain offering for those who were too poor to afford some kind of blood sacrifice. In the ritual the priest would place his hands upon the beast symbolically imputing the particular sin(s) to the animal as if to say "What happens to the bull really happens to me. The bull is now carrying my sin" (Knight,1981:28). The demand of God for the sacrifice gave the individual a guarantee that the committed offence had been completely and wholly dealt with. The formula mentioned above in Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, may give the impression that forgiveness can be secured by purely pragmatic means, and not on the forgiving nature of God (Eichrodt,1967:446). Yet as Eichrodt (Ibid) asserts this idea "directly contradicts the fundamental conviction of the Priestly law", for even though the cultus is distinctly liturgical the rites were sacramental in that the symbology always pointed to intangibles. It was an essentially spiritual act and transaction taking place between the offender(s) and YHWH.

The guilt of the individual or community was understood in two ways; theological, or legal status, and moral. By their breach they were found 'guilty' before YHWH and if the offender took his relationship with God seriously he would experience subjectively a sense of guilt. In the verb 'to make atonement' there are two meanings present, the first speaks of "wiping away or erasing the guilt incurred" while the second can mean "to cover" (Knight,1981:32). Guilt is understood as "the disturbance of a personal relationship of trust" (Eichrodt,1967:416), and is illustrated in the Fall of man as Adam attempts to hide from God (Genesis 3:8).

It is not merely individuals who need to seek forgiveness from God, but also the whole community, this is best expressed in Leviticus 16:1-34, the Day of Atonement, and was considered its most important observance (Weber,1989:104). This annual day was characterised by no work, fasting, prayer, "afflicting the soul", which is having an attitude of remorse and repentance, high liturgy, including blood sacrifice. Weber (Ibid) defines the ritual as a ".. deeply significant outward sign of how God liberates human beings from the very slavery of sin and terror of guilt". At the heart of the ritual were the two goats representing the two aspects of the one act of forgiveness, or 'make atone- ment'. The first was a blood sacrifice offering, and the second, known as the scapegoat, was led out into the wilderness carrying with it the sins of the community for that year, this meant that the sins of the community were both forgiven and forgotten (Kaiser, 1978:118).

When this forgiveness had been secured, whether communal or individual, the most important factor was "that men have been released from a penal sentence" (Eichrodt,1967:453). This is a wonderful expression of the mercy and grace of God, especially when you consider that this forgiveness can be secured with "just a mere cupful of flour ..!" (Knight,1981:34). This same mercy is found in the provision of an animal's life in obtaining forgiveness when God has every right to demand the very life of the sinner himself (Kaiser,1978:117).

Having an understanding of the forgiveness which God bestows on the individual is to be a precedent to follow when a fracture erupts within the covenant community, as "human 'forgiveness' is to be strictly analogous to divine 'forgiveness' " (Vine,1985:251). How this is dealt with is contained in the reparation offering (Leviticus 5:14-6:7). Primarily, the one who deceives his neighbour is firstly being unfaithful to God, or "a breach of faith" (5:15), and secondly being deceitful toward his fellow covenant member. To uncover a suspected act of deception the accused was made to swear an oath of innocence before YHWH, and if it is discovered that he swore falsely he is guilty of profaning, or making the name of YHWH of little consequence, (Hartley,1992:75) he has effectually fallen into a much more serious sin (Ibid:85). Not only this, but in doing so the offender, in a sense, makes God an "accomplice in fraud" (Knight,1981:37). The way this situation was dealt with was through the act of confession , that is, the admission of guilt, followed by the reparation offering of guilt , then forgiveness the removal of guilt and finally absolution, the confirmation of innocence (Knight,1981:38). Hartley (1992:83) identifies three areas of concern here; obtaining property through deceit , obtaining property legally, but immorally, finding lost property then denying done so with lies.

As mentioned above the role of sacrifice was essentially two-fold . There was a definite cost involved, but in this the certainty of forgiveness with both God and neighbour came. Therefore, legal and economic demands were made, which were to be meted out on the same day so that reconciliation with both God and neighbour occurred together (Ibid:84), as there is not to be a distinction between the two in this regard - if you sin against your neighbour you have sinned against your God (Knight,1981:36). Both restitution and reparation are involved here, as sin against a fellow covenant member meant restoring in full that which is in dispute plus 20%, and as well as this a valuable blemish-free ram for the priest to sacrifice was to presented on his behalf (Hartley,1992:75). In doing this the spiritual, legal and moral obligations are all met at the same time (Knight,1981:36). Restitution is a genuine indication of true repentance, and it will be this which re-establishes the relationship after its being damaged through an offence (Hartley,1992:85).

In verse 17 of the regulations for the reparation offering it states, "..., then he realises guilt , and he is held responsible", even though he has legally committed a 'breach of faith', morally the understanding has not come, and only when this moral aspect is brought to his attention must he take steps to rectify. Even if the offender never 'realises' his guilt, legally he shall remain guilt before YHWH until communally the issue of guilt is dealt with. The basic meaning of ’âshâm is the "'guilt, responsibility, or culpability' that a person must bear for having done something wrong .. [and] .. describes the legal/moral standing of a person who has done wrong but not yet been punished" (Hartley,1992:76), alongside of this is the idea the 'guilt' plays on the conscience of the offender so that he become aware of his wrongdoing (Ibid:82). Milgrom (quoted in Ibid:77), on the other hand, has highlighted the verbs objective connotations, that is, the offender's "ethical/legal culpability, rather than for a person's existential feelings". Most likely both ideas are present (Ibid).

The assurance of forgiveness is given to the individual in verse 18; ".., and he will be forgiven". This is stressed because of God's desire to impart to the individual complete absolution from the sense of guilt, and that every necessary requirement has been met (Hartley,1992:83). When the individual takes steps to right the wrong incurred the benevolence of God is expressed in all its fullness to the repentant offender, as God promised that those who do good his mercy will extend to the thousandth generation - exceedingly greater than his wrath! (Eichrodt,1967:430). It is within the very fact that God punishes that man realises his faithful love for man, the kind of love which wounds and heals, and punishes in order to show mercy (Eichrodt,1967:438). It is his righteous judgements which are simultaneously an expression of his eternal mercy and grace (Knight,1981:38). The gift of forgiveness ultimately points to the nature of covenant which existed between God and Israel, a covenant of grace that offers sinful people "redemption and salvation in the form of forgiveness" (Ibid:460).

Expiation is not exclusive to the removal of sin when speaking of forgiveness (Eichrodt,1967:444). An example of this can be witnessed in the removal of guilt through interceding with God (Ibid:448). Because of the nature of this approach of intercession, which was essentially spiritual and unliturgical, an aligning of the repentants' will with that of the will of YHWH's apportioned sufficient value to the individual that the removal of guilt incurred through wrongdoing was ascribed (Ibid:450). An extension of God's hesed is observable in the portions of Scripture which affirm his forgiveness, yet essentially unliturgical in nature. Milgrom (quoted in Hartley,1992:85) suggests, for example, that an intentional sin (classed as a 'sin with a high hand [see above]) "could be reduced to a sin of ignorance by genuine repentance". This idea in expressed in the Psalms, in some prayers and in the prophets.

The Psalmist in Psalm 51 is moved to confess his own guilt because of his own action, which he considers has perverted his own heart. Yet his contrite attitude pleads for a radical change within the heart (Hartley,1992:85). He expresses this as a revelation from God himself, recognising that this is his now 'normal' disposition by virtue of the fact that he was 'conceived in sin'. The difficultly of confession is eloquently shown in the psalm, but it is in the difficultly that the psalmist also finds assurance, and is able to seek forgiveness because of God's incomprehensible mercy (Eichrodt,1967:411). Such an understanding could only come from a love which in all it's fullness and grandeur is able to lower itself to the absolute wretchedness of man (Ibid:479). Ultimately the worshipper is conscience that it is quite pointless to struggle for holiness and forgiveness, and that really all he needs is the presence of the holy God (Weber, 1989:105).

A further illustration of the mercy and grace of God in unliturgical means can be witnessed in the forgiveness of king Manasseh who was considered the most unfaithful of the Davidic kings, yet he reigned the longest in all of Judea (2 Chronicles 33:1-13). Incidents such as this show the power of God boundless forgiveness for those who seem to even be totally outside of the arena of God's forgiveness (Weber,1989:105,106).

In respect to the reparation offering and God's mercy, the most intriguing reference is that expressed in Isaiah 53. The reason for this is because the word 'asham is two-fold, as Hartley (1992:80) explains,

First, it communicates that the servant's death compensates God fully for the damages he has incurred by mankind's sinning. Second, the servant's sacrifice provides expiation for every kind of sin, inadvertent and intentional.

The importance of this portion of Scripture in respect to unliturgical forgiveness is recognised by it's treatment from Eichrodt (1967:452) by his statement that,

..., the vicarious suffering of the righteous is seen as the supreme means employed by absolving grace. It is no accident that the sacrifice of life by which the Servant of Yahweh makes many righteous is described as 'asam, a guilt-offering; and the introduction of the communal penitential form (53:1-6), and the comparison with the lamb, the animal most frequently used for sacrifice, also bring us into the sphere of the atonement offering.

In this discussion of forgiveness a feature has been the apparent unforgiveability of certain sins (Kaiser,1978:118), namely those directly against Yahweh. That is, any sin which is considered as intentional is that which falls outside the forgiveness of God (Noth,1965/77:37). Yet, Eichrodt (1967:430) tells us, that whereas this is true theore- tically, the sovereignty of God was such that he was still free in his dealings with man. Although, in 1 Samuel 3:14 is the intimation that there is a distinct limit to the extent of God's mercy (Ibid:445). Aside from this Eichrodt's observation is consistent with the discussion of God's nature, that his mercy exceeds his wrath. Whereas he is a God who does not allow sin to 'pass by', he is at the same time the God who shows himself as abundantly merciful and full of grace.

The nature of forgiveness highlights the predominant theme throughout that, ultimately, God is love, because love is his ultimate motivation, as mentioned previously his actions dictate his nature (Eichrodt,1967:480). The fact that he chooses to persevere with his chosen people regardless of their sinfulness, and guilt, reveals Gods "triumph of love" (Ibid:481).

Eichrodt,W., Theology of the Old Testament: Volume II , ( SCM , 1967 ).

Gilbrant,T.&T.I., The Complete Biblical Library: *-* , ( Complete Biblical Library , 1990 ).

Hartley,J.E., Word Biblical Commentary: Leviticus , ( Word , 1992 ).

Kaiser,W.C., Toward an Old Testament Theology , ( Zondervan , 1978 ).

Kittel,G.(Ed), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume I *-* , ( Eerdmans , 1964 ).

Knight,G.A.F., The Daily Study Bible: Leviticus , ( Westminister , 1981 ).

Noth,M., Old Testament Library: Leviticus , ( SCM , 1965/77 ).

Vine,W.E., Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words , ( Thomas Nelson , 1985 ).

Weber,H.R., Power: Focus for a Biblical Theology , ( WCC , 1989 ).

Zimmerli,W., Old Testament Theology in Outline , ( T&T Clark , 1978 ).

More Essays

Back to Home